Do you know that there is time limit of 60 days to dispose of a Domestic Violence case in India under sec 12(5) of PWDV Act?

Posted on August 20, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Legislature set a time limit of 60 days for a Domestic Violence case to be disposed as prescribed under sec 12(5) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Here are the Rules made under this Act. But the ground reality is totally different. And I decided to address this issue. Head-on.

NOTE: Since too much thought was going into decide if this matter has to dealt as a WP or a WP(PIL), I decided to do BOTH. First a WP/CrlP, for my individual case and then a WP(PIL) for public benefit.

RESULTS:

Won the individual battle here…
Won the PIL battle too despite it getting dismissed by the Honourables. Read further down this page.

Go here for other cases I dealt with personally…

Law in question (as it stands today):

12. Application to Magistrate.—
(1) An aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act:
Provided that before passing any order on such application, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider.
(2) xxxxx
(3) xxxxx
(4) xxxxx
(5) The Magistrate shall Endeavour to dispose of every application made under sub-section (1) within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing.

Support/Inspiration from some High Courts:

Andhra Pradesh High Court: https://www.shadesofknife.in/naresh-kumar-yalla-vs-state-of-telangana-on-21-jul-2022/
Karnataka High Court: https://www.shadesofknife.in/rajamma-h-vs-thimmaiah-v-on-09-jun-2022/
Telangana High Court: https://www.shadesofknife.in/p-parvathi-vs-pathloth-mangamma-on-7-jul-2022/ [Guidelines passed]
To-do: Find more useful judgments
To-do: Contact Chairpersons of State Women Commissions of various States and ask for timely implementation of DV Act.
To-do: Find oldest ‘pending’ DVC cases in each of the 13 districts of AP, to emphasize the traversity.

Current Status in AP:

Action Taken:

Filed RTI to all 13 District Judge Court Complexes in Andhra Pradesh seeking number of cases closed within 60 working days as prescribed u/s 12(5). If no cases disposed off in 3 years, strike down Sec 12(5) from the Act.

On 2022-06-28:

Sent Reg Posts to all 13 District Judge Courts in AP, asking for information on

how many DV cases were filed in 2019, 2020 and 2021 in their jurisdictional district,
how may were disposed in 2019, 2020 and 2021 in their jurisdictional district, and
how many were disposed within 60 days, in 2019, 2020 and 2021 in their jurisdictional district.

They have 30 days time to reply to me. Will file the PIL in August.

As expected the DV cases closed within statutory 60 days is abysmally low.

Parties:

Petitioner-in-person: Sandeep Pamarati
Respondents: From High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Union of India and State of Andhra Pradesh

1. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the Registrar General
  AP High Court Buildings,
  Nelapadu, Amaravathi,
  Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh
  PIN: 522202
2. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary,
  Ministry of Law and Justice, Dept. of Legal Affairs,
  A Wing, 4th Floor, Shastri Bhawan,
  Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi, 110001
3. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary,
  Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs
  Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
  New Delhi, 110001
4. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary,
  Ministry of Women and Child Development
  Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
  New Delhi, 110001
5. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary,
  Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment
  Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
  New Delhi, 110001
6. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
  Home Department, AP Secretariat,
  Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, 522503
7. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Secretary to Government,
  Law (Legislative Affairs and Justice) Department, AP Secretariat,
  Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, 522503
8. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
  Department of Women Development & Child Welfare
  Office of Special Commissioner, 4th Floor Jampani Towers,
  Lodge Centre, Amaravathi Road, Guntur-522006
9. National Commission for Women, Rep by Chairperson
  Plot No 21, FC33, Institutional Area,
  Jasola, New Delhi, Delhi 110025
10. Andhra Pradesh State Commission for Women, Rep by Chairperson
  Flat No. 506, 4th Floor, MGM Capital Building, Dr. YSR Arogya Sri Complex,
  Chinakakani, Mangalagiri, Guntur. Pin : 522503
11. National Judicial Academy, Rep by The Director,
  Bhadbhada Road, Suraj Nagar PO,
  Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462044
12. A.P. Judicial Academy, Rep by The Director,
  Gandhi Nagar, Nehru Nagar Colony, West Marredpally,
  Secunderabad, Telangana 500026
13. Law Commission of India, Rep by The Member Secretary,
  Lok Nayak Bhavan, ‘B’ Wing, 2nd & 4th Floor,
  Khan Market, New Delhi -110003
14. Bar Council of India, Rep by the Secretary,
  21, Rouse Avenue, Institutional Area,
  New Delhi Pin Code – 110002
15. Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by The Secretary
  Ground Floor, A.P. High Court Building,
  Nelapadu, Amaravati, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh
  PIN: 522 239

Remedy:

File a writ u/Act 226 read with Art 227 seeking direction from High Court of AP to all the Trial Courts in the State which deal with Domestic Violence cases, to mandatorily invoke the time limit of 60 days to dispose of a DV case, as prescribed under sec 12(5), whenever an application for interim reliefs, under sec 23(1), was prayed/sought for also in the spirit of Sec 309 CrPC.

Dilemma: To file WP or WP(PIL)? Why not, both?

Drafting: WP Done in the form of CrlP r/w Art 226 and 227 here. WP(PIL) is pending (u/Art 226 and 227)

Reliefs:

Call for records for the DV cases are disposed in 60 days from Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam, Guntur, Chittoor, West Godavari, Kadapa, Krishna Districts as they did not give data to RTI applications.
Acknowledge the total failure of the implementation of Statutory Compliance of Sec 12(5) of PWDV Act.
Appoint an amicus/LCI to study reasons for this failure in State of AP.
Direct all District Unit Heads to ensure the DV cases are disposed in 60 days (To tackle such scenarios, you can use the Supreme Court judgment to force the Trial judge to come up with case calendar for the entire case, which is available here)
Setup a periodic monitoring mechanism to report the delays in DV case disposal publicly on AP High Court website.

Supporting Case laws:

Mewa Singh and others Vs Sukhjeet Kaur on 29 April 2013 (PHHC: appearance of respondents disposed off)
Ayishabi Vs Shahul Hameed on 16 July, 2014 (KerHC: Dispose within 3 months)
Kuppusamy Vs Radhika on 21 July, 2017 (MadHC: Dispose DVC in 2 months)
Sushila Devi Vs Vikas Kumar Singhal And Ors on 9 Feb 2018 (RajHC: Dispose within 2 months)
Tillottama Kumari Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 16 May 2019 (PatHC: Dispose DVC in 6 weeks)
Maya and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 19 Mar 2021 (AllHC: Dispose DVC in 2 months)
Suyalaly and Anr Vs Alphin Jeyasingh and Ors on 29 Nov 2021 (MadHC: Dispose within 2 months)
Vani Santhosh Babu Vs Vijaya Laxmi Vani on 3 Mar 2022 (TelHC: Dispose in 60 days)
Rajamma H Vs Thimmaiah V on 09 Jun 2022 (KarHC: Dispose DVC within 2 weeks)
Mrugesh Wasnik Vs Shweta Mrugesh on 22 Jun 2022 (BomHC: Dispose DVC within 3 months)
P Parvathi Vs Pathloth Mangamma on 7 Jul 2022 (TelHC: Directions issued regd appearance of respondents)
Naresh Kumar Yalla Vs State of Telangana on 21 Jul 2022 (TelHC: Dispose DVC in 1 month)
Sandeep Pamarati Vs State of AP and Anr on 29 Sep 2022 (APHC: Disposal of DVC in 60 days/3 months (around 20 working days in a month); my first win AP HC!)

Writ Public Interest Petition:

Filed this PIL [WP(PIL)/182/2022] in Oct 2022 but got listed on 14 Nov 2022 before Court-1 of AP HC. Prepared well to argue the matter and hoped to get notices issued to 15 respondents on the petition. But the ;category (For Orders of Court) under which this cases was listed’ and ‘no final WP number given’ made it clear to me that this will be dismissed.

Case status:

I went to podium and began with intro as PIP and then informed there is no personal interest in this PIL and how. That’s all… It was dismissed as not maintainable. Not sure what legal reasons were mentioned in the dismissal order. CJ said, tomorrow I will come with a petition to early dispose another kind of case type. I don’t think this is a legal reason.

Here is the Writ Petition Copy:

2022-10-11 WP(PIL) against APHC and 14 Ors v0.1

Here is the dismissal order.

Sandeep Pamarati Vs High Court of AP and 14 Ors on 14 Nov 2022

Interesting update…

Just after a week from date of the dismissal of my WP-PIL, the following Circular gets issued by AP HC in Nov 2022. Interesting, because earlier circular, issued in Oct 2022, did NOT have a deadline!!! Seems my now-dismissed-PIL is working it’s magic.

2022-Oct-20 Circular:

2022-10-20 CIR_ROC559-20.10.22 Directions for endeavoring to enhance the disposals

…. and then…

2022-Nov-23 Circular:

OPCELL-ROC560-23.11.22

—

The following is the circular forwarded to Anantapur District Judiciary.

2022-11-23 Clearance of Old Cases (ALL those cases instituted prior to 2018)

I AM HAPPY AND SMILING.

MASTER LIST here.

Are State Bar Councils Statutorily empowered to Levy Fees for Gaps in academics during Enrollment?

Posted on May 15, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Goal: To question the legal basis on which Bar Council of AP is charging fees for any gaps in academics of a LL.B Graduate during Advocate enrollment process, apart from taking an affidavit to that effect.

During my enrollment process, Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh (BC-AP) had asked me to pay Rs.7000/- towards 10+ years of gap between my last graduation and LL.B degree. Since I did not believe then that BC-AP (no State Bar Council, for that matter!) never had any statutory power to levy and collect such fees, I paid the said fees duly through SBI Bank challan. My enrollment finished successfully with BC-AP on 17 March 2022 and I became an advocate enrolled with BC-AP (AP/646/2022)… Yippeee!!!

But later, I noticed from other friends who enrolled with Other State Bar Councils, that they were NOT charged any fees for gaps in their academics. This led me to dig deeper and to my astonishment, yes, indeed, no State Bar Council has any statutory power to levy any fees other than that is prescribed in Advocates Act 1961. This decision from Kerala High Court nailed it here (WP before single bench) and here (appeal to Division Bench). The icing on the cake is Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLPs with a 1-liner here. Armed with this information, I decided to challenge BC-AP on this aspect and recover my fees from them.

Steps Taken:

1. Filed a 1-page Representation to BC-AP

2. Filed a 1-page RTI application to BC-AP

I received a missed call from Bar Council landline on 23-May-2022, but none spoke when I called back. Hmmmm!

3. Received this reply from BC-AP. Interesting Answers!

2022-06-02 Reply to RTI application

Interestingly, BCI has earlier in March replied to my RTI application stating that, they do NOT have any knowledge if any State Bar Council is charging fees for gaps in academics. The following is the proof. So BC-AP doing naughty things without knowledge of (AND necessary ratification/approval from) BCI. Spooky…!

2022-03-05 BCIND R E 22 00126-No Knowledge as to State BC taking fee for Gap during enrollment

4. Filed another RTI seeking more information about the resolution that BC-AP passed basis which they are levying unauthorized fees for gaps in academics.

5. Got a reply on 27-Jun-2022.

P10 2022-06-27 Reply to RTI application dt 2022-06-14

6. WP against BC-AP and make BCI as respondent no.2. Petition ready. To be filed on 23rd August, 2022. After 3 weeks of to and fro with Filing Section, the Writ Petition is numbered and will be listed next Monday, tentatively.

Here is the copy of petition filed.

2022-09-12 WP against Gap fees by BC-AP v2.0

7. The WP is listed before Court-14, for Sep 19, 2022 Monday for Initial hearing before Hon’ble Single Bench to issue notices to Respondents. But the Judge was on leave so obtained a new date from Justice Ninnala Jayasurya.

8. As per the interim Order passed, the WP was supposed to be listed on 21-Sep-2022, but it was not listed. What do I do now?

2022-09-19 Sandeep Pamarati Vs the Secretary BCAP and Anr

9. Today noticed that a senior advocate has filed vakalath in the case. Nice…

10. Waiting for listing of the case… Not going to mention the matter. Let’s see…

Index of my life goals here.

Hrishikesh Jaiswal Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Posted on November 7, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A NLIU Bhopal student, Hrishikesh Jaiswal, had filed this WP, in-person seeking effective implementation of the Motor Vehicle Rules in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

Notice issued

Hrishikesh Jaiswal Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others on 25 Oct 2021

PIL – Principal District Judges to have Writ Jurisdiction by implementing Article 32(3) of Constitution

Posted on September 27, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Taking inspiration from the article regarding the proposal of learned senior counsel K.M. Vijayan here, I decided in 2019 to explore the subject deeper in various angles.

Article 32(3) of Constitution of India says so,

32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part.—
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.

Statistics

S.No	High Court Name	Civil	Criminal	Total Cases	Pending Writs	% of Writs
1	Allahabad High Court	420,043	378,888	798,931	286,765	35.89%
2	Bombay High Court	462,687	92,129	554,816	128,649	23.19%
3	Calcutta High Court	188,685	36,436	225,121	–	0.00%
4	Gauhati High Court	44,289	10,527	54,816	23,217	42.35%
5	High Court for State of Telangana	211,877	36,335	248,212	129,727	52.26%
6	High Court of Andhra Pradesh	186,214	32,288	218,502	112 (Doubtful)	0.05%
7	High Court Of Chhattisgarh	49,575	28,077	77,652	28,517	36.72%
8	High Court of Delhi	72,414	26,526	98,940	41,854	42.30%
9	High Court of Gujarat	101,467	50,669	152,136	506 (Doubtful)	0.33%
10	High Court of Himachal Pradesh	69,976	9,831	79,807	13,045	16.35%
11	High Court of Jammu and Kashmir	43,622	6,788	50,410	21,048	41.75%
12	High Court of Jharkhand	41,539	45,885	87,424	26,710	30.55%
13	High Court of Karnataka	239,725	42,018	281,743	71,252	25.29%
14	High Court of Kerala	175,453	45,791	221,244	85,192	38.51%
15	High Court of Madhya Pradesh	250,808	154,057	404,865	119,088	29.41%
16	High Court of Manipur	4,304	457	4,761	2,354	49.44%
17	High Court of Meghalaya	1,308	160	1,468	747	50.89%
18	High Court of Punjab and Haryana	283,359	166,895	450,254	183 (Doubtful)	0.04%
19	High Court of Rajasthan	414,971	148,113	563,084	157,668	28.00%
20	High Court of Sikkim	174	35	209	101	48.33%
21	High Court of Tripura	1,368	235	1,603	620	38.68%
22	High Court of Uttarakhand	24,256	16,687	40,943	16,834	41.12%
23	Madras High Court	524,174	61,435	585,609	87,240	14.90%
24	Orissa High Court	130,834	52,746	183,580	81,447	44.37%
25	Patna High Court	111,608	114,222	225,830	76,495	33.87%

	TOTAL	4,054,730	1,557,230	5,611,960	1,399,371	24.94%

Source: https://njdg.ecourts.gov.in/hcnjdgnew/?p=main/pend_dashboard ; As on 28-Sep-2021

So, a total of 25% of the total cases pending

Identified the various stakeholders that may be impacted if this relief materializes.

If the Writs are allowed to be filed and decided at District Court level,

Litigant Public: The litigant public doesn’t have to incur huge expenses in traveling to the venue of the High Court, engaging a High Court advocate, Have it listed and then keep running expenses from time to time. They can filed their Writ at the District Court itself and engage a competent advocate locally and have considerably less expenses and less timelines to face.
Learned Advocates: Advocate can take up/file Writs at District level and they do not have to move the High Court. Those advocates who do not practice at High Courts currently, can very well handle Writs at District Court itself, by providing cost-effective legal services.
Hon’ble Judiciary at District Courts: Considering the current strength of the judges at Supreme Court (33 as on 27-09-2021), High Courts (633 as on 01-09-2021; 465 vacancies as per Vacancy report of Dept of Justice, https://doj.gov.in/appointment-of-judges/vacancy-positions), District Courts (), and the constant onslaught of Writs being filed at High Courts year-on-year, it is near impossible for the 33+633 Judges to get a considerable grip on the Writ-pendency and dispose of the Writs in a time-bound manner. The District Judiciary also gets to work on one of the jurisdictions that they do not have access to, which is Writ Jurisdiction.

Considering the above facts and need of the hour, it is imperative that the Parliament makes a law (even for a limited time like a year) to decentralize the Writ jurisdiction and grant District judges (including Addl DJs, Special Courts, Family Courts, Labour Courts etc) to take up and dispose Writ petitions at their level itself.

List of Goals here.

Online RTI Portal for State of Andhra Pradesh

Posted on September 23, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Right to Information Act 2005 is a powerful tool in the hands of right people toward right causes. Many path-breaking changes in the public administration were brought about due to the fruitful use of the RTI Act. Union Government has setup an online portal for the benefit of public to be able to file RTI applications (for fee) and First Appeals (for free) to various Central Government Ministries, Departments, Agencies and other instrumentalities.

Many States have already setup their own State-level Online portals to receive RTI applications. But State of AP does not have any Online portal to file/receive RTI applications.

i. Karnataka: https://rtionline.karnataka.gov.in/index.php?lan=E
ii. Tamil Nadu: https://rtionline.tn.gov.in/
iii. Uttar Pradesh: https://rtionline.up.gov.in/
iv. Delhi: https://rtionline.delhi.gov.in/
v. Rajasthan: https://rti.rajasthan.gov.in/
vi. Odisha: https://rtiodisha.in/
vii. Himachal Pradesh: https://himachalservices.nic.in/rti/
viii. Maharashtra: https://rtionline.maharashtra.gov.in/index-e.php
ix. Bihar: https://www.biharonline.gov.in/rti/index.aspx?ln=en
x. Madhya Pradesh: http://rti.mp.gov.in/

Ongoing Efforts by Others

W.P.(C) No. 001040 – / 2019 Registered on 14-08-2019
Diary No.- 18483 – 2019
PRAVASI LEGAL CELL vs. UNION OF INDIA

Updates:

SC Issues Notice On Plea To Set Up Online RTI Portals In States [Read Petition]
26 Aug 2019 11:38 AM
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/sc-issues-notice-on-plea-to-set-up-online-rti-portals-in-states-147474

Last Order passed on 14-Oct-2019
States to file affidavit finally within a period of four weeks from today. The Union of India is also directed to file its affidavit during the said period.
Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

Online RTI portal: Supreme Court gives 4 weeks more to Centre, states to file replies on the plea
Oct 14, 2019, 18:36 IST
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/online-rti-portal-supreme-court-gives-4-weeks-more-to-centre-states-to-file-replies-on-the-plea/articleshow/71582892.cms

Online RTI Portal: SC seeks Centre’s response on Pravasi Legal Cell’s plea
October 14, 2019

Online RTI Portal: SC seeks Centre’s response on Pravasi Legal Cell’s plea

Supreme Court issues notice to 25 high courts for not providing online RTI facility (PIL filed by Agra-based lawyer and RTI activist KC Jain)
Jan 22, 2021, 04:30 IST
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/agra/supreme-court-issues-notice-to-25-high-courts-for-not-providing-online-rti-facility/articleshow/80391316.cms

My Efforts at AP State level

Representations were sent to concerned government officials along with State Information Commission. (List of other State Information Commissions in India here)

Based on the response received from the authorities, a WP(PIL) is to be filed.

Lily Thomas Vs Union of India and Ors on 10 Jul 2013

Posted on November 1, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court has struck down the Section 8(4) as ultra vires to the Constitution which was in the following fashion,

(4) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) a disqualification under either sub-section shall not, in the case of a person who on the date of the conviction is a member of Parliament or the Legislature of a State, take effect until three months have elapsed from that date or, if within that period an appeal or application for revision is brought in respect of the conviction or the sentence, until that appeal or application is disposed of by the court.

From Paras 19 and 20,

19. The result of our aforesaid discussion is that the affirmative words used in Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) confer power on Parliament to make one law laying down the same disqualifications for a person who is to be chosen as member of either House of Parliament or as a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State and for a person who is a sitting member of a House of Parliament or a House of the State Legislature and the words in Articles 101(3)(a) and 190(3)(a) of the Constitution put express limitations on such powers of the Parliament to defer the date on which the disqualifications would have effect. Accordingly, sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act which carves out a saving in the case of sitting members of Parliament or State Legislature fromthe disqualifications under sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act or which defers the date on which thedisqualification will take effect in the case of a sitting member of Parliament or a State Legislature is beyond the powers conferred on Parliament by the Constitution.

20. Looking at the affirmative terms of Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) of the Constitution, we hold that Parliament has been vested with the powers to make law laying down the same disqualifications for person to be chosen as a member of Parliament or a State Legislature and for a sitting member of a House of Parliament or a House of a State Legislature. We also hold that the provisions of Article 101(3)(a) and 190(3)(a) of the Constitution expressly prohibitParliament to defer the date from which the disqualification will come into effect in case of a sitting member of Parliament or a State Legislature.Parliament, therefore, has exceeded its powers conferred by the Constitution in enacting sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act and accordingly subsection(4) of Section 8 of the Act is ultra vires the Constitution.

From Para 23,

…

Sitting members of Parliament and State Legislature who have already been convicted for any of the offences mentioned in sub-section (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act and who have filed appeals or revisions which are pending and are accordingly saved from the disqualifications by virtue of sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act should not, in our considered opinion, be affected by the declaration now made by us in this judgment.

…

However, if any sitting member of Parliament or a State Legislature is convicted of any of the offences mentioned in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act and by virtue of such conviction and/or sentence suffers the disqualifications mentioned in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act after the pronouncement of this judgment, his membership of Parliament or the State Legislature, as the case may be, will not be saved by subsection (4) of Section 8 of the Act which we have by this judgment declared as ultra vires the Constitution notwithstanding that he files the appeal or revision against the conviction and /or sentence.

Lily Thomas Vs Union of India and Ors on 10 Jul 2013

Citations : [2013 ABR 6 236], [2013 AD SC 10 655], [2013 AIR SC 2662], [2013 AWC SC 6 5458], [2013 BOMCR 5 261], [2013 CGLRW SC 2 339], [2014 CLT SC 117 284], [2013 JLJR 3 351], [2013 JT SC 9 419], [2013 KARLJ 5 1], [2013 KLJ 3 284], [2013 KERLT 3 296], [2013 LW 4 857], [2013 MLJ 5 463], [2013 OLR 2 941], [2013 PLJR 3 261], [2013 RCR CIVIL 3 713], [2013 SCALE 8 469], [2013 SCC 7 653], [2013 SCC L&S 7 811], [2014 WBLR SC 1 69], [2013 SCC CIV 3 678], [2013 SCC CRI 3 641], [2013 SCC L&S 2 811], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 603], [2013 GUJ LH 2 408], [2013 GUJ LR 3 2209], [2013 ILR KERALA 3 203], [2014 CUT LT 117 284]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/63158859/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af2ee4b0149711415be4

Supreme Court Landmark Judgment- Lilly Thomas v. Union of India

Litigation by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay

Posted on October 24, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya ji has launched a lot of Public Interest Litigation and since the entire collection is not available in a single place, the following is a curated list for interested folks.

Initiated between 1986-1990

Initiated between 1991-1995

Initiated between 1996-2000

Initiated between 2001-2005

Initiated between 2006-2010

Initiated between 2011-2015

Initiated between 2016-2020

Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 699/2016 : Attacking the pending criminal cases against the elected representatives of people (MPs and MLAs) in various Courts of India and expedite and disposed them on war-footing.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 329/2019 : The Section 31 of the CrPC, which provides that a convict can serve varying jail terms simultaneously for several offences, should not be made applicable to the convicts in heinous cases under special laws such as “the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), the Black Money and Imposition of Tax Act, and Fugitive Economic Offenders Act,.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6259/2019 : Seeking Union Government to implement 24th recommendation of National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (Justice Venkatchaliah Commission) on Population Control; Two-child norm as a criteria for government jobs, aids and subsidies, and, may withdraw statutory rights viz. right to vote, right to contest, right to property, right to free shelter, right to free legal aid etc.;

Initiated between 2021-2025

W.P.(C) No. 1334/2020: Regards to Election Reforms in India, i.e., Right to Reject all candidates in an election.

Initiated between 2021-2025

Neeraj Shankar Saxena and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors

Posted on October 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In this case, Supreme Court issued notice on a plea challenging the constitutional validity of the National Commission for Minorities Act 1972 and various governmental schemes for the religious minorities at the expense of taxpayer money.

Here is the Petition copy.

Neeraj Shankar Saxena and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors - Petition

On 2020-01-20

Neeraj Shankar Saxena and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors on 20 Jan 2020

https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/hindus-suffering-for-being-born-in-majority-plea-in-sc-challenges-constitutionality-of-minorities-commission-welfare-schemes-for-religious-minorities

https://www.indialegallive.com/constitutional-law-news/supreme-court-news/sc-issues-notice-plea-challenging-constitutionality-minority-commission-welfare-schemes-religious-minorities/

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/no-safeguards-for-non-islamic-properties-from-inclusion-of-waqf-plea-in-sc-challenges-the-constitutional-validity-of-waqf-act-1995-162164

PIL – Dowry Givers should be prosecuted (Veerabhadra Rao Pamarathi and Anr Vs UOI and Ors)

Posted on June 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

After losing out (didn’t lose the case but didn’t get opportunity to argue in-person) in an earlier attempt here, I decided to take Writ Petition route as I am (along with my parents!) one of the affected person of this biased implementation of a convoluted interpretation of section 7(3) of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 (amended in 1986). Also, decided to decentralize my PIL prayers.

So picked up this prayer from earlier attempt and worked on writing the WP.

Issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to Respondents, such that there is no ambiguity to them whether to prosecute the Dowry givers under section 3 of DP Act read with section 7 of DP Act and no discrimination is made between Dowry Giver and Dowry Taker, under Section 3(1) of DP Act, in similar fashion as that of made by Bangladesh.

Key Point

Shouldn’t all Dowry givers be booked and prosecuted as per section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 (as amended from time to time) or not?

Arguments – Counter Arguments

Another simple point from the Bare Act itself.

Prayer

Prosecute Dowry Givers u/s 3(1) without protecting them u/s 7(3) = Article 14 and 21 compliance

Alternatively, strike down words ‘Gives’ and ‘abets to give’ from section 3(1) = ultra-vires to Article 14 and 21 compliance and contrary to legislative intent

Either-way, I win!

Full prayers from the Writ Petitions:

All the cited case laws are listed here.

Malreddy Ramachandra Reddy Vs C. Vanaja Reddy and Ors on 16 April 2003 (AP HC)
Ram Gopal Sah Vs State Of Jharkhand on 03 December 2008 (Jharkhand HC)
Pooja Saxena vs State and Anr on 20 October 2010 (Delhi HC)
Yashpal Kumar Vs Bhola Nath Khanna and Anr on 1 March 2012 (Delhi HC)
Kudarathullah Khan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 21 March 2012 (AP HC)
Viral Dhulia Vs Virag Dhulia on 25 July 2013 (Kar HC)
Chitranjan Dev Goel and Ors Vs State (Nct of Delhi) and Ors on 21 March 2016 (Del HC)

ACTION STARTS:

WP (in the name of my parents, and not in my name) is filed on 14-09-2021. WP No. 20594 of 2021 (WPSR 27260/2021). Here is the affidavit.

Writ Petition seeking direction against misinterpretation of Sec 7(3) of DP Act 1961 3.5 ONLY AFFIDAVIT

Case Details

Filed a memo with additional information on 17-09-2021:

MEMO for Extra Info

Order Passed on 20-09-2021

Initial hearing before admission on 20-09-2021. Notices issued to the Respondents. Government Advocates take notice and sought 4 weeks time to file Counters.

Veerabhadra Rao Pamarati and Anr Vs UOI and Ors on 20 Sep 2021

Next Date of Hearing : 13-12-2021

The case was transferred from Court-14 to Court-1, since there is a question of law involved.
It is almost 90 days from the date of issue of notices to Government advocates but I am still waiting for the Counters to be filed by them. I suspect, they will continue to seek additional time. Let’s see how this gamble goes on…

Since the petitioner is questioning the vires of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Registry is directed to post the matter before the appropriate Bench as per roster.

2 Veerabhadra Rao Pamarati and Anr Vs UOI and Ors on 13 Dec 2021

Next Date of Hearing : 16-12-2021

My Advocate took two weeks time.

On the request made by Ms. Sridevi Jampani, learned counsel for the petitioners, post this case after two weeks.

3 Veerabhadra Rao Pamarati and Anr Vs UOI and Ors on 16 Dec 2021

Next Date of Hearing : 30-12-2021

Due to COVID-19 situation, the Court-1 took up only part of the Causelist and rest of the cases, including mine, was not listed. No future date known.

Next Date of Hearing : 13-06-2022

Since 4 months, not a single listing was possible. Frankly, not asked/mentioned/represented appropriately by the advocate. Will wait out the Vacation period for High Court and then get the advocate changed to… myself. Hence filed the NOC obtained from previous advocate and my vakalat. (Expense: Rs.300/-)

Next Date of Hearing : 14-06-2022

I am the new Advocate for this Writ Petition.

Updated on eCourts Website…

‘

Updated on eCourts app…

Updated on AP High Court Case Status website…

Next Date of Hearing : 23-06-2022

I went and appeared before Court 1 today. Got a Court slip filled and ready. Gathered up courage (my first time facing a High Court judge, that too Chief Justice!) and stepped up to the mike. Cleared my throat and uttered few words.

—————————————

Me: The matter pertains to a Writ Petition filed in Sep 2021.

CJ: What is the urgency?

Me: The matter was not listed after Dec 2021.

CJ: We have around 2.5 lakh cases pending, some for much more time than that. (Don’t know if he is proud/sad about this). Again what is the urgency?

Me: The matter pertains to critical question of law regarding Dowry Prohibition Act

CJ: No urgency. Mention rejected.

—————————————

What do I do next?

Next Date of Hearing : 26-07-2022

Going to take a different plea for urgency.

– Court-14 issues Notices to the Respondents on 08-09-2021.

– Government Advocates take the notice and seek 4 weeks time to file Counters on same day.

– Court-14 transfers the Writ Petition to Court-1 since there is a question on the vires of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 on 13-12-2021.

– Lapse of 120 days on 06-01-2022

(as per amended Rules 12(i)(a) and 12(ii) of AP HC Writ Proceeding Rules 1977)

-[12(i)(a) Every Respondent in every Writ Petition intending to enter appearance and oppose any Writ Petition on which notice is issued by the High Court, shall enter appearance and file a Counter Affidavit in opposition as soon as may be and in any event not later than one hundred and twenty days from the date of service of notice in the Writ Petition or the Service of Rule nisi on the said Respondent”.]

-[12(ii) “No counter affidavit filed beyond one hundred and twenty days from the date of service of notice on the opposite party or parties in the Writ Petition shall be received or be used at the hearing of the Writ Petition unless the Court grants leave to file counter affidavit beyond the stipulated period, subject to such terms as the Court may deem fit.”]

– Till date none of the Respondents filed any Counter so I can submit to Court-1 to strike out the defence of the Respondents and pass orders in the Writ, as the Hon’ble Court finds appropriate.

Union of India
State of Andhra Pradesh
Director General of Police
Station House Officer, Disha Women Police Station, Ongole

On Next Date of Hearing : 26-07-2022

I went and appeared before Court 1 today. Got a Court slip filled and ready.

—————————————

Me: The matter pertains to a Writ Petition filed in Sep 2021 and Notices were issued also.

CJ: What is the urgency?

Me: The respondents have not filed any Counter Affidavits till date. As per Writ Rules, only 120 days time is given to respondents to file their Counter Affidavits but in this case already 320 days elapsed.

CJ: If we go by Rules, I will have to dismiss many petitions. May be in future, you will be respondent. What to do then? (Don’t know how Petition can be dismissed for fault of Respondent?). Again what is the urgency?

Me: (silent)

After lunch time, I get to know that my Court Slip/Mentioning was rejected by CJ. Again.

—————————————

Here is the rejected Court slip.

What do I do next? God knows!

Next Date of Hearing : 05-08-2022

Since I was not in a habit of checking the listing of my cases (officially just two; for one, CJ doesn’t see urgency, for another, File not available at AP HC), I totally missed to appear before the Court in which this case got listed miraculously. Also since it was my 40th birthday, I had reached my home town in the morning of 5th August.

See the time at which I received the SMSs (I got them after the business of the Court ended)

[Note: Filed RTI application to AP HC, asking for the number of Writs for which Counter was NOT filed within 120 days. Interesting reply awaited!]

2022-08-05 Listing of 20594 of 2021

Here is the order passed. Not sure if Counter is filed by the Respondent No.1 (Union of India)

4 Veerabhadra Rao Pamarati and Anr Vs UOI and Ors on 05 Aug 2022

Next Date of Hearing : 30-09-2022

…

PIL Petition to Effectively Reduce False Dowry Cases

Posted on February 26, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

If you have read through the preparation for this PIL here, the following are the documentation I created for this PIL and related Court Order and other titbits.

Here are the Main Prayers:

It is respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court may be pleased to issue the following Writ Reliefs in the interest of justice, equity and in accordance to protect the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India of citizens as laid out in above section titled, “IV.GROUNDS/FACTS IN DETAIL, AS NECESSARY TO APPRECIATE THE CONTENTION OF PIL” on Urgent Basis to abate the violation of fundamental rights from eternal perpetuity.

Further, it is pointed out that in view of the Conflicting views passed by different Fora regarding the said provisions of the impugned enactments, the interference of this Court is indispensable to ensure certainty in the lives of citizens at the receiving end and consistency in the approach of the Legislature and Judiciary towards granting fair trial to the people.

Issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to Respondents, to link various marriage enactments of India with Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, by making Marriage Registration certificate as a mandatory document for Proof of Marriage, to file a case under any provision of DP Act.
Issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to Respondents, to amend the application forms used for Registration of Marriages in all States and Union Territories to
- capture if any presents were given to either bride or groom before/during/after the marriage ceremony as mandated in Dowry Prohibition Rules (Maintenance of Lists) of 1985.
- declare that there is no dowry given/taken/demanded by either side of bride or bride groom, before/during/after the marriage ceremony.
Issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to Respondents, such that there is no ambiguity to them whether to prosecute the Dowry givers under section 3 of DP Act read with section 7 of DP Act and no discrimination is made between Dowry Giver and Dowry Taker, under Section 3(1) of DP Act, in similar fashion as that of made by Bangladesh.
Issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to Respondents, to ensure all the necessary awareness is created at all institutions where Marriages are performed in regards to the Dowry Menace and the legal rights of parties.
Issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to Respondents, to ensure all the necessary sensitization is created at all Fora where Marriages are registered in regards to the Dowry Menace and the legal rights of parties.
Issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to Respondents, to ensure that each Marriage so registered with Marriage Registrars or similar Institutions give out free literature such as a booklet, pertaining to existence of Dowry Laws & relevant provisions of Indian Penal Code 1860.
Issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to Respondents, to ensure that the Name of the enactment be suitably amended from Dowry Prohibition Act, to reflect and include all words that align to the demand for money or property under various religions, thereby making it not perceived as an enactment specific to only Hindu religion alone.
Issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to Respondents, to ensure that in all criminal cases filed under Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 and 498A I.P.C. or any other penal code dealing with Dowry-related crime, where the accused person/persons are acquitted on merits, the Investigating officers are prosecuted for launching false prosecution suo moto, by the same Magistrate who passed an order of acquittal.

In the Alternative,

Strike down appropriately and sufficiently, all relevant sections of DP Act, so as to make Giving of Dowry as no more a crime in India as all the persons who give Dowry are never going to be prosecuted at all, in the view of the bar imposed by Section 7(3) DP Act.

And here is the Petition (only petition; There are umpteen additional affidavits that I had to file in support of my petition)

HMA DP3 PIL v3.0 (To Upload)

Rejection Order Passed by the Committee of Registrars:

Report of Committee of Registrars

Timeline for this PIL:

In November 2019, PIL was filed. Lots of learnings.

In December 2019, Interview was conducted by Registrar Judicial.

In January 2020, above Order was passed by the Registrar Judicial, by lying that I never appeared Party-in-person in any Court. (I have evidence to disprove this)

In February 2020, I withdrew the PIL, as I was not permitted to argue my PIL case, Party-in-person.

Next Steps

Since PIL route has been explored and all nuances in filing understood, I will explore the WP route now and later on explore Letter Petitions. And in more than one Petitions per unique prayer. Continue here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit)

Do you know that there is time limit of 60 days to dispose of a Domestic Violence case in India under sec 12(5) of PWDV Act?

I AM HAPPY AND SMILING.

Are State Bar Councils Statutorily empowered to Levy Fees for Gaps in academics during Enrollment?

Hrishikesh Jaiswal Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

PIL – Principal District Judges to have Writ Jurisdiction by implementing Article 32(3) of Constitution

Online RTI Portal for State of Andhra Pradesh

Lily Thomas Vs Union of India and Ors on 10 Jul 2013

Litigation by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay

Neeraj Shankar Saxena and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors

PIL – Dowry Givers should be prosecuted (Veerabhadra Rao Pamarathi and Anr Vs UOI and Ors)

PIL Petition to Effectively Reduce False Dowry Cases